Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 3465
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Dr. Inder Jit Singh, PM, Dr. Sudhir Kumar Jain, M
Pranav Ansal – Appellant
Versus
Sunita Jain – Respondent
APPEAL EXECUTION NO. 95 OF 2024 | APPEAL EXECUTION NO. 96 OF 2024 | APPEAL EXECUTION NO. 97 OF 2024 | APPEAL EXECUTION NO. 98 OF 2024
For the Appellant (s):Mr. Hitaish Chauhan, Advocate (VC)
For the Respondent (s):Ms. Nidhi Jain, Advocate (VC)
The court stressed procedural compliance in executing warrants, dictating that summons should precede non-bailable warrants in enforcement of State Commission orders.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - Sections 72 and 73 - Non-compliance of the State Commission - Appeal Executions filed against orders for non-bailable warrants of arrest issued against judgment debtors for failing to comply with orders of the State Commission - The execution of non-bailable warrants was deemed not illegal but procedural lapse observed in straight issuance without prior summons. (Paras 11, 12)
(B) Consumer Protection - The scope of maintainability of Appeals under Section 73 and applicability of penalties under Section 72 considered, emphasizing the need for adherence to legal procedures. (Para 11)
Facts of the case:
Four Appeal Executions were initiated against orders by the State Commission to secure compliance from judgment debtors who failed to satisfy decrees, leading to the issuance of non-bailable warrants for arrest on 25.02.2025 due to non-compliance with prior orders.
Findings of Court:
The court ruled the immediate issuance of non-bailable warrants was not illegal but raised procedural concerns regarding the absence of summons.
Issues: Key issues revolved around whether the issuance of warrants should follow a prior approach to summons and the legality of the procedure followed by the State Commission.
Ratio Decidendi: The court underscored the necessity of procedural safeguards, suggesting initial summons should precede any coercive measures, even as the issued warrants were confirmed not to be illegal.
Result: The Appeal Executions were disposed of, directing the Appellant to appear before the State Commission.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of appeal executions and the context of orders challenged. (Para 1 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. discussion on non-compliance and procedural issues related to arrest warrants. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 3. clarification of the legal grounds for issuing warrants and maintainability of appeals. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. final decision and directives regarding appearance before the state commission. (Para 12 , 13) |
ORDER
DR. INDER SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER
1. These 4 Appeal Executions have been filed challenging the orders of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'State Commission') in various Execution Petitions as detailed below:
| Sr.No. | Appeal Execution No. | EA No. before State Commission |
| 1. | AE/95/2024 | EA/1/2024 in CC/70/2017 |
| 2. | AE/96/2024 | EA/2/2024 in CC/71/2017 |
| 3. | AE/97/2024 | EA/3/2024 in CC/73/2017 |
| 4. | AE/98/2024 | EA/4/2024 in CC/74/2017 |
2. As these AEs have been filed against similar orders of the State Commission and issues involved are same, hence these are taken up together.
3. Four Consumer Complaints as per following details were filed and decided by the State Commission:
| Sr.No. | CC No. | Name of the Complainant | Name of the OPs | Date of Disposal/ Decree |
| 1. | CC/70/2017 | Ms. Sunita Jain | Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Ltd. & Ors.______________ | 09.08.2023 |
| 2. | CC/71/2017 | Ms. Shivani Aggarwal | Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Ltd. & Ors.______________ | 09.08.2023 |
| 3. | CC/73/2017 | Mr. Jai Dutt Vashisht | Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Ltd. & Ors._____________ _ | 09.08.2023 |
| 4. | CC/74/2017 | Mr. Ram Sewak Sharma & Anr. | Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Ltd. & Ors. | 09.08.2023 |
4. Execution Petitions were* filed by the Decree Holders before the State Commission as per the following details:
| Sr. No. | EA No. | Name of the Decree Holder | Name of the Judgment Debtor | Date of the State Commission's order_______ |
| 1. | EA/1/2024 | Ms. Sunita Jain | Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Ltd. & Ors. | 03.12.2024 |
| 2. | EA/2/2024 | Ms. Shivani Aggarwal | and Properties Ansal Infrastructure Ltd. & Ors. | 03.12.2024 |
| 3. | EA/3/2024 | Mr. Jai Dutt Vashisht | Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Ltd. & Ors. | 03.12.2024 |
| 4. | EA/4/2024 | Mr. Ram Sewak Sharma & Anr. | and Properties Ansal Infrastructure Ltd. & Ors. | 03.12.2024 |
5. Vide above stated different orders dated 03.12.2024, the State Commission issued directions to issue non-Bailable warrants of arrest against Mr. Sushil Ansal, Chairman and Whole Time Director, Mr. Anil Kumar, Managing Director and Pranav Ansal, CEO and whole time Director of M/s Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd. for 25.02.2025. Hence, the present four Appeal Executions have been filed by Mr. Pranav Ansal, CEO and whole time Director of M/s Ansal Properties & Infrastructure and Ors., challenging the above stated orders of the State Commission dated 03.12.2024 and 09.08.2023.
6. Above stated orders of the State Commission are reproduced below:
6.1 Impugned order dated 03.12.2024 passed in EA/1/2024 in CC/70/2017 (AE/95/2024)
"Mr. Sunny Tyagi, counsel, Advocate appearing on behalf of Judgment Debtors-OPs No.3 pointed out that JDs No. 1 to 5 have not deposited amount in account of DH-compiainant after order dated 11.011.2024 passed by this Commission. In view of above, this commission has been constrained to adopt coercive approach against JDs No. 1 to 5.
Under these circumstances let, non-Bailable warrants of arrest be issued against Mr. SilshH Ansai, Chairman and Whole Time Director, and Mr. Anil Kumar Managing Director and Pranav Ansal, CEO and whole time Director; M/s Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd.) for 25.02.2025 on the addresses given in the memo of parties through Superintendent of Police, of area concerned where these JDs are currently residing with the request to depute a police officer not below the rank of Inspector for the purpose of execution of Non- Bailable warrants of arrest.
It is further clarified that in case of failure to execute Non- Bai table warrants of arrest, executing police official would come in person before this Commission on adjourned date to explain reasons in that regard.
Power of
